(07-30-2018 06:05 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 02:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-29-2018 01:55 PM)JOwl Wrote:  So, I'm interested. In light of the actual text of the of the FISA application, is there anyone here who cares to defend then Nunes memo?

The memo states its purpose to be to "[provide] Members an update on significant facts relating to the Committee's ongoing investigation". (emph mine)

The FBI was very concerned about the memo, saying "we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy".

The FBI's concerns were borne out completely. Specifically, in the section where the memo purports to inform members about the application's discussion of the political origins of the dossier, it spends two paragraphs describing things the application did not mention -- the DNC, Clinton, the DNC again, Clinton again, etc. But it wholly omits all of the application's actual discussion of the political origins of the dossier. Specifically, the application says "the FBI speculates that the identified US person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign", but the memo makes no mention of this.

There is no universe in which an update on the significant facts of the FISA application's discussion of the political origins of the dossier would fail to mention that the application says that it was likely created for the purpose of discrediting Trump's campaign. Yet that's just what Nunes did. And he intended his memo to be published in a vacuum -- as the only discussion available of the application's contents. I can't see how any would see Nunes's memo as anything other than a deliberate attempt to mislead its audience through omission. But I'm sure someone here sees it differently.

This is the first time aside from an Enron defense that I have heard that anyone claim that one sentence tucked into a footnote fits anywhere near 'full disclosure of a material and cogent fact', especially when that one footnote sentence doesnt even refer to the Parties or Individuals as anything more than an the aforesaid indirect references. Kudos to you JOwl.... (I guess...)

The footnote took up over a full page. The nature of the information was perfectly suited to a footnote. I have no doubt the judges read it and understood it just as well as I did.

How many FISA applications have you read? I've read parts of one, and this obscuration of parties and individuals seemed standard procedure.

You seem upset about the size of the text used to convey this information in the FISA application... can't you spare even a bit of that dismay for the _complete_ and _intentionally misleading_ omission of same information in the Nunes memo?

But I see that while you responded to my question, you proffered no defense of the memo. So perhaps there is a hint that you are bit troubled by it.

Zero FISA warrants. Plenty of plain jane ones. Hiding that **** in a footnote in the the normal style would be somewhat horseshit, the judge, if/when the application came out would be livid, the ADA would lose their job, might be fined, might have bar problems.

With all due respect, the 'charging parties' minimized the **** out of what should have been highlighted in the warrant, to be blunt. But that seems to escape that eagle eye of yours.

How many warrant have you had experience with JOwl? Since you are opining so loftfully here --- or is this Vox speaking for you?

By the way, perhaps you should compare the 14 paragraphs of Nunes with the warrant as well. The Nunes memo was pretty much dead to rights.

Quote:WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration says people would drive more and be exposed to increased risk if their cars get better gas mileage, an argument intended to justify freezing Obama-era toughening of fuel standards.

https://apnews.com/07c8fd1825ed42e08393f7d151a0664d

(07-31-2018 01:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 06:05 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 02:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-29-2018 01:55 PM)JOwl Wrote:  So, I'm interested. In light of the actual text of the of the FISA application, is there anyone here who cares to defend then Nunes memo?

The memo states its purpose to be to "[provide] Members an update on significant facts relating to the Committee's ongoing investigation". (emph mine)

The FBI was very concerned about the memo, saying "we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy".

The FBI's concerns were borne out completely. Specifically, in the section where the memo purports to inform members about the application's discussion of the political origins of the dossier, it spends two paragraphs describing things the application did not mention -- the DNC, Clinton, the DNC again, Clinton again, etc. But it wholly omits all of the application's actual discussion of the political origins of the dossier. Specifically, the application says "the FBI speculates that the identified US person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign", but the memo makes no mention of this.

There is no universe in which an update on the significant facts of the FISA application's discussion of the political origins of the dossier would fail to mention that the application says that it was likely created for the purpose of discrediting Trump's campaign. Yet that's just what Nunes did. And he intended his memo to be published in a vacuum -- as the only discussion available of the application's contents. I can't see how any would see Nunes's memo as anything other than a deliberate attempt to mislead its audience through omission. But I'm sure someone here sees it differently.

This is the first time aside from an Enron defense that I have heard that anyone claim that one sentence tucked into a footnote fits anywhere near 'full disclosure of a material and cogent fact', especially when that one footnote sentence doesnt even refer to the Parties or Individuals as anything more than an the aforesaid indirect references. Kudos to you JOwl.... (I guess...)

The footnote took up over a full page. The nature of the information was perfectly suited to a footnote. I have no doubt the judges read it and understood it just as well as I did.

How many FISA applications have you read? I've read parts of one, and this obscuration of parties and individuals seemed standard procedure.

You seem upset about the size of the text used to convey this information in the FISA application... can't you spare even a bit of that dismay for the _complete_ and _intentionally misleading_ omission of same information in the Nunes memo?

But I see that while you responded to my question, you proffered no defense of the memo. So perhaps there is a hint that you are bit troubled by it.

Zero FISA warrants. Plenty of plain jane ones. Hiding that **** in a footnote in the the normal style would be somewhat horseshit, the judge, if/when the application came out would be livid, the ADA would lose their job, might be fined, might have bar problems.

With all due respect, the 'charging parties' minimized the **** out of what should have been highlighted in the warrant, to be blunt. But that seems to escape that eagle eye of yours.

How many warrant have you had experience with JOwl? Since you are opining so loftfully here --- or is this Vox speaking for you?

By the way, perhaps you should compare the 14 paragraphs of Nunes with the warrant as well. The Nunes memo was pretty much dead to rights.

Seriously? You're going with "Hiding that **** in a footnote in the the normal style would be somewhat horseshit, the judge, if/when the application came out would be livid, the ADA would lose their job, might be fined, might have bar problems." ?

The application with this page-plus footnote was reviewed four times, each time by a different FISA judge. Four Republican FISA judges. Four Republican FISA judges, each of whom _approved_ the application.

So given that history, excuse me while I laugh at your suggestion that including that information in a footnote is misconduct that would make a FISA judge so livid as to cost the applicant his job, etc. I have zero warrant experience, which appears to be exactly the same amount of relevant experience as you.

And yes, I've read the Nunes memo. All 14 paragraphs. You and I both know that it is misleading by omission, for reasons I've detailed numerous times above. But you refuse to admit it.

And to be fair, that footnote was really hard to miss.

Always amazing to me to see how vigorously the Steele dossier is defended by certain people.

I am sure they all would be OK with surveillance on them granted on the basis of a dossier commissioned by their opponents, for a foreign spy to apply to Russians for dirt on them. Perfectly normal state of affairs.

(07-31-2018 11:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Always amazing to me to see how vigorously the Steele dossier is defended by certain people.

I am sure they all would be OK with surveillance on them granted on the basis of a dossier commissioned by their opponents, for a foreign spy to apply to Russians for dirt on them. Perfectly normal state of affairs.

Remember, the warrant was granted to monitor Page after he had officially left the Trump campaign.

(07-31-2018 11:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 11:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Always amazing to me to see how vigorously the Steele dossier is defended by certain people.

I am sure they all would be OK with surveillance on them granted on the basis of a dossier commissioned by their opponents, for a foreign spy to apply to Russians for dirt on them. Perfectly normal state of affairs.

Remember, the warrant was granted to monitor Page after he had officially left the Trump campaign.

Yeah, sure, the investigation has nothing to do with Trump. And the Russians who gave Steele the info are pure as the driven snow.

(07-31-2018 11:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 11:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 11:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Always amazing to me to see how vigorously the Steele dossier is defended by certain people.

I am sure they all would be OK with surveillance on them granted on the basis of a dossier commissioned by their opponents, for a foreign spy to apply to Russians for dirt on them. Perfectly normal state of affairs.

Remember, the warrant was granted to monitor Page after he had officially left the Trump campaign.

Yeah, sure, the investigation has nothing to do with Trump. And the Russians who gave Steele the info are pure as the driven snow.

Just saying that when talking about the FISA warrant and who it was monitoring, it’s good to remember the timeline of events. If the FISA application had been made with the intention of targeting Trump himself, don’t you think that they would have at least selected a person actively working on the campaign?

What if, just hear me out, there was real and legitimate concern that Page was either actively involved in espionage or was being used by the Russians?

Has anyone seen a transcript of any of the FISA proceedings? Do such transcripts even exist?

Quoting from the FISA rules:

"Rule 7. Filing Applications, Certifications, Petitions, Motions, or Other Papers ("Submissions").
...
"(g) Contents. Each application and certification filed by the government must be approved and certified in accordance with the Act, and must contain the statements and other information required by the Act."

I read this to mean that everything in the warrant application must be certified as true by the government. If you can read it differently, please provide your interpretation. In that context, one would expect that, if the footnote was noted, someone would have asked the obvious question, "Considering that footnote disclosure, what steps have you taken to verify or corroborate all contents of the application? If so, how?" That would be the kind of questions that my proposed ad litem would be expected to ask. If the government at any point stated that everything had been verified or corroborated, then the comments of Mr. Schiff in an interview with CNN back in the spring become relevant. He stated that only part of the dossier was used, that the racy parts were not used, and that "some of" what was used had been corroborated. Said it twice, actually, at about 0:55 and 1:15 here:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/...vp-BBLkUMY

ETA: Interestingly, that link no longer works, it seems to have been pulled down. I did find it here:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/...court.html

Yes, that's real clear politics, but the video of the interview would seem to stand on its own.

Now, I'm going to make some assumptions, namely that Mr. Schiff is a competent attorney, that he is familiar with the FISA rules, and that he is going to present everything in the most favorable light to the FBI and the Muller investigation. Do you see the problem here? "Some of" means some wasn't. Was any government representative requesting the warrant ever asked the question I propounded above? If so, how did that question get answered? Because the way I see it, if Schiff spoke truthfully in the CNN interview, then the warrant was not properly issued, or was issued based on misrepresentation by the government.

In that context, whether or not the disclosure about partisanship was proper in a footnote, or how prominent that footnote was, becomes moot. Either way, there is a problem. If the judge noted the disclosure, then the question about verification or corroboration should have been asked. If it was answered that it had all been corroborated, then either Schiff lied or the government lied. If the answer was no, then the warrant should not have been issued. If the question was never asked, then there is a reasonable presumption that either the application was misleading or the judge did not competently review the application. I don't now which of those is true. Which one would you rather argue?

(07-31-2018 07:34 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 01:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 06:05 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 02:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-29-2018 01:55 PM)JOwl Wrote:  So, I'm interested. In light of the actual text of the of the FISA application, is there anyone here who cares to defend then Nunes memo?

The memo states its purpose to be to "[provide] Members an update on significant facts relating to the Committee's ongoing investigation". (emph mine)

The FBI was very concerned about the memo, saying "we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy".

The FBI's concerns were borne out completely. Specifically, in the section where the memo purports to inform members about the application's discussion of the political origins of the dossier, it spends two paragraphs describing things the application did not mention -- the DNC, Clinton, the DNC again, Clinton again, etc. But it wholly omits all of the application's actual discussion of the political origins of the dossier. Specifically, the application says "the FBI speculates that the identified US person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign", but the memo makes no mention of this.

There is no universe in which an update on the significant facts of the FISA application's discussion of the political origins of the dossier would fail to mention that the application says that it was likely created for the purpose of discrediting Trump's campaign. Yet that's just what Nunes did. And he intended his memo to be published in a vacuum -- as the only discussion available of the application's contents. I can't see how any would see Nunes's memo as anything other than a deliberate attempt to mislead its audience through omission. But I'm sure someone here sees it differently.

This is the first time aside from an Enron defense that I have heard that anyone claim that one sentence tucked into a footnote fits anywhere near 'full disclosure of a material and cogent fact', especially when that one footnote sentence doesnt even refer to the Parties or Individuals as anything more than an the aforesaid indirect references. Kudos to you JOwl.... (I guess...)

The footnote took up over a full page. The nature of the information was perfectly suited to a footnote. I have no doubt the judges read it and understood it just as well as I did.

How many FISA applications have you read? I've read parts of one, and this obscuration of parties and individuals seemed standard procedure.

You seem upset about the size of the text used to convey this information in the FISA application... can't you spare even a bit of that dismay for the _complete_ and _intentionally misleading_ omission of same information in the Nunes memo?

But I see that while you responded to my question, you proffered no defense of the memo. So perhaps there is a hint that you are bit troubled by it.

Zero FISA warrants. Plenty of plain jane ones. Hiding that **** in a footnote in the the normal style would be somewhat horseshit, the judge, if/when the application came out would be livid, the ADA would lose their job, might be fined, might have bar problems.

With all due respect, the 'charging parties' minimized the **** out of what should have been highlighted in the warrant, to be blunt. But that seems to escape that eagle eye of yours.

How many warrant have you had experience with JOwl? Since you are opining so loftfully here --- or is this Vox speaking for you?

By the way, perhaps you should compare the 14 paragraphs of Nunes with the warrant as well. The Nunes memo was pretty much dead to rights.

Seriously? You're going with "Hiding that **** in a footnote in the the normal style would be somewhat horseshit, the judge, if/when the application came out would be livid, the ADA would lose their job, might be fined, might have bar problems." ?

The application with this page-plus footnote was reviewed four times, each time by a different FISA judge. Four Republican FISA judges. Four Republican FISA judges, each of whom _approved_ the application.

So given that history, excuse me while I laugh at your suggestion that including that information in a footnote is misconduct that would make a FISA judge so livid as to cost the applicant his job, etc. I have zero warrant experience, which appears to be exactly the same amount of relevant experience as you.

Whatever, sparky. Glad to know your friends at Vox are on that religiously. Good that they have that 'no experience with warrants' person like you in their corner to beat that drum for them.

If you are so thick as to not to understand when you have 'a thing' that is relied upon in the manner that the Steele memo is relied upon, and when the action is an ex parte action, you dont fing hide **** nor do you pack it in the corner. Especially as to provenance.

You want to do that? -- go for it sparkles.

And yes, was on the opposite side of 'warrant issues' at a much earlier stage in my career. So, as far as I am concerned you can FOAD for your blind characterization.

Tells me how much to add to your 'brings relevance to' score, to be honest.....

Quote:And yes, I've read the Nunes memo. All 14 paragraphs. You and I both know that it is misleading by omission, for reasons I've detailed numerous times above. But you refuse to admit it.

Yes. You keep beating that drum rather incessantly. And no, the Nunes memo ism pretty the fk spot on. The one thing that is 'anywhere' near misleading is the characterization of the background of the Memo.

But, to be honest, I find the warrant to be just as misleading by obscuring to a massive extent that very same issue. They went out of their way to bury that massively salient fact as much as possible yet still be able to dance to the tune 'it was disclosed (maybe)'.

Is *that* how you *really* want the fing FBI and intelligence community to play with those salient facts if it were *your* life they were going massively intrude in? Seriously? I find that action to be grotesque, *especially* when dealing with an ex parte proceeding.

Funny that you whine so much about 'misleading by omission' when the warrant application pretty much plays the 'misleading by hiding the fk out the provenance.' Richly hypocritical for you I'd say.

The rest of the 16 paragraphs are pretty much dead accurate. But I am sure they are not for you.

The idea that the information about Steele was "hidden" in the FISA app is laughable. There is literally an ENTIRE page (16 of 412) that is the continuation of the footnote that starts 1/3 of the way down the previous page (15 of 412). If the FBI was trying hard to bury that information, they sure did a bad job going into a lengthy discussion about who Steele was and where is funding came from. Also, a good half of that footnote is redacted, making it hard to know other information about Steele, his sources, the veracity of the information, etc. was provided.

There's no way this footnote, which was provide near the beginning of the document and at a length that makes it impossible to miss, was missed. Plus, as you see throughout the application, footnotes are used extensively to provide background on the case at hand.

(08-02-2018 04:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The idea that the information about Steele was "hidden" in the FISA app is laughable. There is literally an ENTIRE page (16 of 412) that is the continuation of the footnote that starts 1/3 of the way down the previous page (15 of 412). If the FBI was trying hard to bury that information, they sure did a bad job going into a lengthy discussion about who Steele was and where is funding came from. Also, a good half of that footnote is redacted, making it hard to know other information about Steele, his sources, the veracity of the information, etc. was provided.
There's no way this footnote, which was provide near the beginning of the document and at a length that makes it impossible to miss, was missed. Plus, as you see throughout the application, footnotes are used extensively to provide background on the case at hand.

You understand that this whole dispute is pretty much irrelevant, right. I may not agree with your opinion, but I don't want to waste time going there.

The FISA rules require that everything stated in the application must be verified and corroborated fact. If you think about it, it can't be any other way without due process problems. It's an ex parte proceeding, the target makes no appearance, has no opportunity to put on evidence, and has no opportunity to question the government. If not for the verification requirement, any US attorney could go in and get approval to wiretap anyone on totally false grounds. I would assume that you agree that is not a proper outcome.

Now, Adam Schiff has said in an interview I referenced that not all of the dossier was used, specifically that the racy parts were exclude, and that some of what was used was verified/corroborated. The means some wasn't. And that's simply not good enough.

Now if the footnote information was in fact noted, then the question of verification and corroboration should have been asked by the judge, if not addressed directly by the government. So these are the possibilities, as I see them:
1) The footnote was not sufficiently conspicuous to be noted. That is the alternative you argued against, so let's look at the others.
2) The judge noted the footnote but did not inquire further before issuing the warrant. That would be judicial misconduct.
3) The judge asked the question, or the government volunteered the information, and the government stated incorrectly that it had all been verified. That would be perjury.
4) The judge asked the question, or the government volunteered the information, and the government stated correctly that it had not all been verified, and the judge issued the warrant anyway. Again, judicial misconduct.
5) All of the information had been verified/corroborated before presentation and Adam Schiff is a liar. Of course, why would he lie when the truth was more favorable to his position?

I'm trying to identify any other options. Can you come up with any others? Of the ones I have identified, which one do you think is least problematic for the government. Adam Schiff is a liar seems least problematic to me, but while I would shed no tears if Mr. Schiff were so exposed, that just doesn't make sense to me.

(08-02-2018 05:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 04:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The idea that the information about Steele was "hidden" in the FISA app is laughable. There is literally an ENTIRE page (16 of 412) that is the continuation of the footnote that starts 1/3 of the way down the previous page (15 of 412). If the FBI was trying hard to bury that information, they sure did a bad job going into a lengthy discussion about who Steele was and where is funding came from. Also, a good half of that footnote is redacted, making it hard to know other information about Steele, his sources, the veracity of the information, etc. was provided.
There's no way this footnote, which was provide near the beginning of the document and at a length that makes it impossible to miss, was missed. Plus, as you see throughout the application, footnotes are used extensively to provide background on the case at hand.

You understand that this whole dispute is pretty much irrelevant, right. I may not agree with your opinion, but I don't want to waste time going there.

The FISA rules require that everything stated in the application must be verified and corroborated fact. If you think about it, it can't be any other way without due process problems. It's an ex parte proceeding, the target makes no appearance, has no opportunity to put on evidence, and has no opportunity to question the government. If not for the verification requirement, any US attorney could go in and get approval to wiretap anyone on totally false grounds. I would assume that you agree that is not a proper outcome.

Now, Adam Schiff has said in an interview I referenced that not all of the dossier was used, specifically that the racy parts were exclude, and that some of what was used was verified/corroborated. The means some wasn't. And that's simply not good enough.

Now if the footnote information was in fact noted, then the question of verification and corroboration should have been asked by the judge, if not addressed directly by the government. So these are the possibilities, as I see them:
1) The footnote was not sufficiently conspicuous to be noted. That is the alternative you argued against, so let's look at the others.
2) The judge noted the footnote but did not inquire further before issuing the warrant. That would be judicial misconduct.
3) The judge asked the question, or the government volunteered the information, and the government stated incorrectly that it had all been verified. That would be perjury.
4) The judge asked the question, or the government volunteered the information, and the government stated correctly that it had not all been verified, and the judge issued the warrant anyway. Again, judicial misconduct.
5) All of the information had been verified/corroborated before presentation and Adam Schiff is a liar. Of course, why would he lie when the truth was more favorable to his position?

I'm trying to identify any other options. Can you come up with any others? Of the ones I have identified, which one do you think is least problematic for the government. Adam Schiff is a liar seems least problematic to me, but while I would shed no tears if Mr. Schiff were so exposed, that just doesn't make sense to me.

You missed one obvious option - misspeaking/misunderstanding. Perhaps Schiff meant that only the portions of the dossier that were verified were used? As opposed to suggesting that parts of the dossier were used and only parts of those parts were verified?

Per the memo Schiff released, this issue was referenced a few times.

Quote:The FBI has undertaken a rigorous process to vet allegations from Steele's reporting, including with regard to Page (a footnote is present that references an interview with Andrew McCabe).

Quote: In subsequent FISA renewals, DOJ provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele's reporting. (Which was then followed by redacted information, likely about that corroboration.)"

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/...-Memo.html

(08-02-2018 05:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You missed one obvious option - misspeaking/misunderstanding. Perhaps Schiff meant that only the portions of the dossier that were verified were used? As opposed to suggesting that parts of the dossier were used and only parts of those parts were verified?

Well, the link I provided above no longer takes you to the correct interview. Maybe somebody figured out that it wasn't helpful to the cause of the Resistance and pulled it down. I did find it on Real Clear Politics. Yes, it's RCP, but I don't think you can change the video by shooting the messenger. Here, you can view it for yourself:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/...court.html

OK, now I found it on YouTube if you can't accept RCP:

https://youtu.be/JRpqZit48AA

Here is the relevant part, as transcribed by RCP: "The broader point, though, was that the only parts of the dossier that were important were those that pertained to Carter Page. And some of that was corroborated. We set this out in our responsive memo. So it's very important for people to understand, contrary to the misleading impression that the GOP gives, the salacious video and all that stuff, that was not part of the FISA application. Only the parts pertinent to Carter Page. And there was corroboration of some of those very important elements."

Now, if only Alisyn Camerota had pressed him with the obvious follow-up question, "So some of it was corroborated means that some was not?" we might have gotten to the bottom of it right then. But I don't expect that much journalistic integrity from anybody at CNN.

Schiff makes it pretty clear that he means that some of the part that was actually used was verified. And he says it twice, at about 0:55 and again at about 1:15, and the same way both times, which kind of takes the wind out of the sails for your misspeak scenario. I think it was said like Susan Rice and the Benghazi video, in the hope that it would plant the thought while going over the heads of those who might appreciate the significance. Schiff knew he was on friendly ground and could get away with it.

Quote:Per the memo Schiff released, this issue was referenced a few times.

Quote:The FBI has undertaken a rigorous process to vet allegations from Steele's reporting, including with regard to Page (a footnote is present that references an interview with Andrew McCabe).

Quote:
In subsequent FISA renewals, DOJ provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele's reporting. (Which was then followed by redacted information, likely about that corroboration.)"

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/...-Memo.html

You understand that in order to comply with the FISA rules, that's not good enough, right? Unless it was all nailed down tight before they took it to court the first time, its use was improper. Subsequent verification efforts are irrelevant. As for renewals of the warrant, I'm not sure how the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine would apply. Tanq, others, can you help me out there. I didn't do much criminal law, ever.

Those of you who have been around here that long may remember that I was very outspoken in my dislike of the patRIOT act because it ran roughshod over civil liberties. In particular, the potential for abusive use of the FISA court troubled me. I think this is exactly the kind of situation I worried about. One thing I've always argued for is an ad litem to represent the interests of the unaware target. In this case, I would have expected a competent ad litem to raise these issues if nobody else did. Interestingly, a bill to eliminate some of those possibilities was introduced by none other than Mr. Schiff some years ago. Of course, now that his team is benefitting from this abuses, guess what? He says he would no longer vote for his own bill.

Just amazes me the lengths the left will go to to justify this.

Boils down to one principle: the end justifies the means. In plain english, it's just Trump, so no holds barred.

(08-03-2018 08:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just amazes me the lengths the left will go to to justify this.

Boils down to one principle: the end justifies the means. In plain english, it's just Trump, so no holds barred.

And likewise, the left generally can't believe the lengths the right will go to try and obfuscate the rationale behind the investigation, make logic leaps with information that isn't there, and on, and on. The amount of evidence that suggests an investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign (not just Trump) that the right routinely blows off is astounding, IMO.

It's become a partisan mess where both sides can't understand the position of the other.

I think the FISA app is a perfect example of this - the Schiff memo and Nunes memo seem to exist in two totally different universes, yet they obviously do not. This situation has turned the Republican party into the party that is wary of law enforcement and the Democratic party into the party that supports them, no matter what - a complete role reversal.

My hope, as it has always been, is that when the dust clears and the Mueller probe ends, that both sides can accept the final findings, regardless of which side they support. I have a bit more hope for that, since Mueller has just recently referred some Democrats (Tony Podesta)to the Southern District of New York for prosecution. The catching of Dems, especially one with such a close tie to Clinton, will hopefully make everyone realize Mueller is actually trying to run a non-partisan investigation.

(08-02-2018 04:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The idea that the information about Steele was "hidden" in the FISA app is laughable. There is literally an ENTIRE page (16 of 412) that is the continuation of the footnote that starts 1/3 of the way down the previous page (15 of 412). If the FBI was trying hard to bury that information, they sure did a bad job going into a lengthy discussion about who Steele was and where is funding came from. Also, a good half of that footnote is redacted, making it hard to know other information about Steele, his sources, the veracity of the information, etc. was provided.

There's no way this footnote, which was provide near the beginning of the document and at a length that makes it impossible to miss, was missed. Plus, as you see throughout the application, footnotes are used extensively to provide background on the case at hand.

And the provenance that this was 'paid for opposition research' is limited to one sentence. And that sentence doesnt even bother to note the parties by name.

Yeah, one sentence in a 'footnote', where the 'footnote' truly cannot be 'missed' (since it is a fing page long', and the sentence doesnt even botgher to directly name the actors.)

Real fing awesome job of being being honest there, Lad.

And no offense, if you bury that pertinent disclosure to a court that deep in a civil matter (pertinent to the fact that it is a 'contra' ruling or the like) -- yeah, the other side has every basis to ask for sanctions. And that is for the lesser threshold of a contested matter.

When you bury that type of information so fing deep in a ex parte matter (i.e. uncontested), yes, it is fing grotesque Lad.

But please keep dancing that 'Resistance jig' on that pinhead Lad like there is no issue.

Considering the ramifications of this procedure is literally the stripping of civil rights, and dealing with 'all levels' of everyday communication that are amazingly sancrosanct, I guess it is fine to hide 'info bad for you' deep in the bowels of page long footnotes and never directly identifying the people. Nice paradigm you buy into there Lad.

Is it so fing bad to simply ask for the standard of 'since this is literally the *most* fing intrusive a surveillance can be, is it really too fing hard to show the issues that cut against your application directly and obviously'? I guess that is a standard that you dont buy into. Bummer. I would have thought the lefties on this board would actually like **** that tends to protect civil liberties to the largest extent. Guess Im wrong on that account, again.

The applicants could have said in one sentence in the main body: The target of the investigation has been part of the Trump campaign, and this information came to light as a result of the Clinton campaign's 'paid for' opposition research, and all references to Steele are such paid-for products.

See? Direct, on point, and full disclosure. One fing sentence. Seems to be a minimal request, but apparently you prefer the contortionistic and far less visible means of implying that, but without directly doing so. Got it.

If the judge has any fing questions as to the depth of the material, he can certainly fing ask. And if the judge gets the question asked, or doesnt ask, the statement is plain as fing day. Too much to ask here?

(08-03-2018 09:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 04:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The idea that the information about Steele was "hidden" in the FISA app is laughable. There is literally an ENTIRE page (16 of 412) that is the continuation of the footnote that starts 1/3 of the way down the previous page (15 of 412). If the FBI was trying hard to bury that information, they sure did a bad job going into a lengthy discussion about who Steele was and where is funding came from. Also, a good half of that footnote is redacted, making it hard to know other information about Steele, his sources, the veracity of the information, etc. was provided.

There's no way this footnote, which was provide near the beginning of the document and at a length that makes it impossible to miss, was missed. Plus, as you see throughout the application, footnotes are used extensively to provide background on the case at hand.

And the provenance that this was 'paid for opposition research' is limited to one sentence. And that sentence doesnt even bother to note the parties by name.

Yeah, one sentence in a 'footnote', where the 'footnote' truly cannot be 'missed' (since it is a fing page long', and the sentence doesnt even botgher to directly name the actors.)

Real fing awesome job of being being honest there, Lad.

And no offense, if you bury that pertinent disclosure to a court that deep in a civil matter (pertinent to the fact that it is a 'contra' ruling or the like) -- yeah, the other side has every basis to ask for sanctions. And that is for the lesser threshold of a contested matter.

When you bury that type of information so fing deep in a ex parte matter (i.e. uncontested), yes, it is fing grotesque Lad.

But please keep dancing that 'Resistance jig' on that pinhead Lad like there is no issue.

Considering the ramifications of this procedure is literally the stripping of civil rights, and dealing with 'all levels' of everyday communication that are amazingly sancrosanct, I guess it is fine to hide 'info bad for you' deep in the bowels of page long footnotes and never directly identifying the people. Nice paradigm you buy into there Lad.

Is it so fing bad to simply ask for the standard of 'since this is literally the *most* fing intrusive a surveillance can be, is it really too fing hard to show the issues that cut against your application directly and obviously'? I guess that is a standard that you dont buy into. Bummer. I would have thought the lefties on this board would actually like **** that tends to protect civil liberties to the largest extent. Guess Im wrong on that account, again.

The applicants could have said in one sentence in the main body: The target of the investigation has been part of the Trump campaign, and this information came to light as a result of the Clinton campaign's 'paid for' opposition research, and all references to Steele are such paid-for products.

See? Direct, on point, and full disclosure. One fing sentence. Seems to be a minimal request, but apparently you prefer the contortionistic and far less visible means of implying that, but without directly doing so. Got it.

If the judge has any fing questions as to the depth of the material, he can certainly fing ask. And if the judge gets the question asked, or doesnt ask, the statement is plain as fing day. Too much to ask here?

To the bold, my understanding is that the FISA court goes to great lengths not to name any American by name. Notice how Trump was never named, even though he was not the target of the application and it was obvious who Candidate #1 was? So your hypothetical about naming names wouldn't fly because they don't do that.

And I am being honest Tanq, but go ahead, besmirch me all you want if it makes you feel better. I'm not dancing on any pinhead - actually reading through the FISA app, it makes it clear that footnotes that provide background on information used in the app is normal and par for the course. So no pinhead or dancing needed.

You're the one dancing on the pinhead and trying to suggest that the information you deem so awful was hidden. If you have two eyeballs and a 7th grade reading comprehension, it's incredibly obvious that the information was not hidden as you keep suggesting it was. An no amount of repetition of that line will make it true - the info wasn't hidden - it was produced and explained in a way that was clear, concise, and could not be missed.

Owl#s has a much more compelling argument about whether or not the information was vetted ahead of time, and I've seen people on both sides of the aisle argue about whether or not each claim used needed to be independently verified. I would lean towards there needing to be some sort of verification, but since so much language is redacted, it's hard to get up in arms about the potential possibility that some of the information provided by Steele was not independently verified because we don't have the full picture.

(08-03-2018 09:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 08:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just amazes me the lengths the left will go to to justify this.

Boils down to one principle: the end justifies the means. In plain english, it's just Trump, so no holds barred.

And likewise, the left generally can't believe the lengths the right will go to try and obfuscate the rationale behind the investigation, make logic leaps with information that isn't there, and on, and on. The amount of evidence that suggests an investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign (not just Trump) that the right routinely blows off is astounding, IMO.

It's become a partisan mess where both sides can't understand the position of the other.

I think the FISA app is a perfect example of this - the Schiff memo and Nunes memo seem to exist in two totally different universes, yet they obviously do not. This situation has turned the Republican party into the party that is wary of law enforcement and the Democratic party into the party that supports them, no matter what - a complete role reversal.

My hope, as it has always been, is that when the dust clears and the Mueller probe ends, that both sides can accept the final findings, regardless of which side they support. I have a bit more hope for that, since Mueller has just recently referred some Democrats (Tony Podesta)to the Southern District of New York for prosecution. The catching of Dems, especially one with such a close tie to Clinton, will hopefully make everyone realize Mueller is actually trying to run a non-partisan investigation.

What rationale? I have asked hundreds of times for any reasonable narrative. You came the closest, but fell short. At least you tried. Everybody just ignored the request and pressed forward with their hysterics. If there is a rationale beyond CLINTON LOST, let's hear it.

When the cops investigate a crime, they use the evidence to construct a theory of what happened, why, and when. That s the narrative, and it is subject to change as evidence mounts, but in the end, it is the story the prosecutor will tell the jury. Nobody even knows what the working narrative is.

Speaking of hysterics, what i was referring to is the hysteria surrounding the the Trump Tower meeting, which turns out to have the effect of a fart in a hurricane, yet ignoring the same type of actions for the Trump dossier.

The left goes into head banging hysteric over the Trump tower meeting. Why? because the target was Clinton.

They defend the dossier, the purpose, the methods, the uses. why? because the target is Trump.